Who should compete in Michael's Tournament?

[Dave Mitchell]

Here's my suggestions: (yell at me if you hate them, not Michael)

In the unlimited division, the clones will be outclassed by the big boy's hardware so- let everybody compete.

In the single quad cpu division, the clones will have a division to fight on equal terms with each other, and anyone else who wants to contest in this division.

Instead of leaving the clones out (which leaves out several of the stronger programs right now), let's seed the well known programs, but leave space also for some others. The others may be clones or not, but everyone can compete, up to the limits of the tournament time and space.

For Allowing Clones:
==============

1) Allow the clones to compete in any division

2) Allow clones to compete only in the single cpu division

3) Allow no clones to compete

[hgm]

One question:

Who is to stop me to register for the tourney with 100 clones of Ivanhoe (or whatever at the time seems the strongest open-source engine around), to improve my chances to win the money prize....???

If you want clones to be welcome, would they be that welcome?

[Dave Mitchell]

Of course not -- are you kididng me?

No competitor would be allowed to enter more than one program.

[hgm]

Well, but I happen to have 100 nevues and nieces that are not averse of getting their hands on a little prize money too...

Should they each be allowed to play with their own private clone of Ivanhoe / Robbolito?

[xsadar]

Allowing clones just plain doesn't make sense. If a clone wins, the original author probably deserves the prize money much more than the clone maker. You could arrange it that the prize must be divided amongst all contributors, but then that means that the original author of a clone would have multiple entries. Here are my thoughts on what's fair.

1) Each entry must be submitted by the primary author(s) of the entry -- meaning that the vast majority of the chess-playing code was written by the entrant, and no major contributor is being excluded. You can define what constitutes a major contributor. Some exceptions could be made if a contributor does not wish to participate as long as it's fair to everyone involved, including the contributor and all other participants.

2) No person may have more than one entry.

Here's my suggestions: (yell at me if you hate them, not Michael)

In the unlimited division, the clones will be outclassed by the big boy's hardware so- let everybody compete.

In the single quad cpu division, the clones will have a division to fight on equal terms with each other, and anyone else who wants to contest in this division.

Instead of leaving the clones out (which leaves out several of the stronger programs right now), let's seed the well known programs, but leave space also for some others. The others may be clones or not, but everyone can compete, up to the limits of the tournament time and space.

For Allowing Clones:
==============

1) Allow the clones to compete in any division

2) Allow clones to compete only in the single cpu division

3) Allow no clones to compete

[Dave Mitchell]

We need to restrict the entries so the round robin will be able to complete a reasonable number of rounds, in only the one weekend.

Having an automated few rounds after normal hours, while we sleep, would help in that regard, imo.

The way I see it, it will still have a seeded group of programs - Crafty, Junior, Shredder, Rybka, Fritz, etc. -- all the usual programs.

It will also have an unseeded group of programs, which should include the stronger clones or "questionable" programs: Naum, Toga II, Robbolito, Houdini, Critter, Ivanhoe, etc.

I would definitely like to see Stockfish competing, as well.

Unless one of your nephews or nieces is going to make a very strong clone program, able to trounce the original it's derived from - nope, they won't be getting an invitation.

This is just my opinion of course. Final decisions will be made by Michael Sherwin, or his designee .

[marcelk]

My suggestion:

Submit all money winners to the source inspection procedure.
Proof that the code that played is original work, and proof that
the games were played by -that- program. If the inspection
finds to contain unlicensed work, disqualify the entry.

It is not much different from doping controls in sports events.
Cloning is computer chess' equivalent of doping.

You won't get the discussions upfront, you don't need to get into
nasty accusations before anything gets cleared up and you
know what you are up to when entering.

Marcel

[Michael Sherwin]

My suggestion:

Submit all money winners to the source inspection procedure.
Proof that the code that played is original work, and proof that
the games were played by -that- program. If the inspection
finds to contain unlicensed work, disqualify the entry.

It is not much different from doping controls in sports events.
Cloning is computer chess' equivalent of doping.

You won't get the discussions upfront, you don't need to get into
nasty accusations before anything gets cleared up and you
know what you are up to when entering.

Marcel

Or they could forfeit say 60% of their prize if they refuse. That way the commercials can win something with out revealing their code.

[marcelk]

My suggestion:

Submit all money winners to the source inspection procedure.
Proof that the code that played is original work, and proof that
the games were played by -that- program. If the inspection
finds to contain unlicensed work, disqualify the entry.

It is not much different from doping controls in sports events.
Cloning is computer chess' equivalent of doping.

You won't get the discussions upfront, you don't need to get into
nasty accusations before anything gets cleared up and you
know what you are up to when entering.

Marcel

Or they could forfeit say 60% of their prize if they refuse. That way the commercials can win something with out revealing their code.

The commercials can be pleased with an NDA with the inspection
committee and take 100% of the price money if they want.
Or participate without rights on any money. Whatever they want.

Formula 1 is heavily regulated. Olympics are heavily regulated.
Nobody wants an unfair competition. Allowing unlicensed code
creates unfair competition.

[bob]

Why is a poll necessary. Anyone can organize a tournament and run it any way they want. Unlimited clones. No clones. Or anywhere in between. Why should "we" have any say-so in what he does? No, the event is not going to mean very much once the first suspected clone enters. But he is certainly free to do what he wants.